[Editorial] Political independence for broadcast reform

By Kang Dae-in
Konkuk University
Former chairman, Korean Broadcasting Commission

Delays continue in the appointment of a new chairperson and regular members for the Korean Broadcasting Commission. Subsequently, there has been trouble putting the new "Broadcasting Communications Integration Promotion Committee" together, and no one is being appointed to fill top positions in the field, such as the presidents of the Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) and the Educational Broadcasting System (EBS). Technology is progressing every day in this the era of digital media, but no progress is being made on the policies that are urgently needed to keep up with the changes. Do members of the National Assembly, who by definition have the authority to appoint a certain number of new commission members, still feel tempted to wield influence on the broadcasting industry? Why are they delaying the appointment of the next set of members of the Korean Broadcasting Commission, breaking the law in the process?

Can we please make broadcasting free from politics? Four of the commission's nine members are, according to the Broadcasting Law, required to be standing members. That is the basic spirit of a deliberative council, which is supposed to give all members the authority to make final decisions. However, for the commission's second term, the ruling and opposition parties conspired to increase the number of standing members to five, or more than half the whole commission, and in their selection of members they were criticized for awarding people for their party loyalty instead of choosing them for their expertise. The parties also stand accused of having become lobbyists for terrestrial broadcasting companies, by calling current and former broadcasting personalities "industry experts" and putting them in prominent positions.

Both the ruling and opposition parties have responsibility to bear for the way the commission has been composed of highly political individuals packaged as "experts." Truth in broadcasting crumbles when it is held back by the political element in society. The world that broadcasting seeks to express and convey inevitably becomes distorted. Have they already forgotten how much national energy was spent after the 1980s to correct the mistakes of the governments of years past, which used broadcasting as a political tool?

The Korean people have long placed a lot of significance on making broadcasting independent, having experienced a history in which it was not free from political authority. They used to believe that maintaining a framework for it to exist free from political authority, capital, and special elements would be the beginning of independent broadcasting. How can it be independent, however, if the commission that was supposed to be a symbol of that independence is not free from political and special elements?

The ruling and opposition parties need to stop repeating the same old political games over who gets appointed to the commission in accordance with their complex interests and concerns. The reason the president and the National Assembly are each allotted the authority to appoint a certain number of members is an expression of the people's desire to have a commission that has expertise. They want a commission made up of specialists with the ability to accurately analyze and judge the rapidly changing media environment instead of speaking for specific broadcasting companies or political party interests.

What has happened to the policy goals that were part of the initial drive to reform the industry? Most importantly, has there been a total separation from politics and special interests for the sake of independence? The reality is that none of these questions has clear answers, and that is what makes one start to talk about reform in broadcasting all over again.

The administration of Kim Dae-jung made a lot of the right decisions despite the many difficulties it faced. The administration of Roh Moo-hyun shares some of the same roots, so if it is this administration letting reform fall by the wayside, what will the people who chose it say, having believed in the consistency of its policy? Will it never block outside groups from being able to interfere in broadcasting independence, and by doing so, make broadcasting what it is supposed to be? There is still time to make that happen.